CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ZALDIVAR-PEREZ VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 204739, 2019
ZALDIVAR-PEREZ VS. SANDIGANBAYAN,
G.R. No. 204739, 2019
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
The
right to a speedy disposition of cases is deemed violated only when the
proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays.
FACTS
A Complaint-Affidavit dated April 28, 2006
for Unlawful Appointment. Tamboong alleged that petitioner Perez
appointed Atty. Eduardo S. Fortaleza (Fortaleza) on January 30, 2006 as the
Provincial Legal Officer of the province despite knowing that he did not meet
the minimum requirement of five (5) years in the practice of law under Section
481, Article XI, Title V of the Local Government Code of 1991.
From the foregoing facts,
approximately six years had elapsed from May 17, 2006, the time when the
complaint-affidavit was filed before the OPP-Antique, until May 24, 2012, when
the case was filed before the Sandiganbayan. The OPP-Antique too almost three years from the filing of
the Complaint-Affidavit within which to conclude the preliminary investigation
and to arrive at its August 6, 2009 Resolution, while it took the OMB for
Visayas more than three years from the date the August 6, 2009 Resolution was
endorsed to it up to the time the Review Resolution was finalized on September
8, 2011 and approved by Ombudsman Carpio-Morales on September 26, 2011. Still,
it took he Ombudsman another eight months from the approval of the September 8,
2011 Review of the August 6, 2009 Resolution up to the filing of the complaint
before the Sandiganbayan on May 24, 2012.
The prosecution offered no
explanation regarding the delay in conducting the preliminary investigation and
in its findings indicting petitioner Perez of the offense charged.
ISSUE
Whether the right of Perez to speedy
disposition of her case was violated hence the case must be dismissed.
RULING
Yes.
The court ruled that the right to a speedy disposition of cases is deemed violated only when the
proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. Valid
reasons for the delay identified and accepted by the Supreme Court (SC)
include, but are not limited to: (1) extraordinary complications such as the
degree of difficulty of the questions involved, the number of persons charged,
the various pleadings filed, and the voluminous documentary and testimonial
evidence on record; and (2) acts attributable to the respondents.
Here, the court
ruled that there is no doubt that petitioner Perez was prejudiced by the
inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. The charge of
Unlawful Appointment based on the ground that the appointee does not possess
the minimum requirement for the said position is a simple case and does not
involve a complicated and complex issue that would require the painstaking
scrutiny and perusal of the Ombudsman that would warrant the protracted delay.
It bears stressing that this case involved only petitioner Perez and the only
pleading that she filed was her Counter-Affidavit and nothing else. The lapse
of six years before the filing of the Information with the Sandiganbayan placed
her in a situation of uncertainty. This protracted period of uncertainty over
her case caused her anxiety, suspicion and even hostility. To perpetuate a
violation of this right by the lengthy and unreasonable delay would result to
petitioner Perez’s inability to adequately prepare for her case and would
create a situation where the defense witnesses were unable to recall accurately
the events of the distant past, leading to the impairment of petitioner Perez’s
possible defenses.